Gordon wrote:
>> You know where I am coming from? Where I am coming from? >> >[Gordon]How do you prove the Non Physical? What is the link? Are you suspecting I got some Natural Number on the head after which I became a true believer in Numberland? Mmh... Brett Hall is right things are the other way round. I guess I got no apple on the head. I am somehow skeptical about any "concrete things" ever since (!). People believe glass of bear exists because they have drunk those glass and that's concrete. I think it could appear concrete only because their brain makes the necessary abstraction unconsciously and instinctively (automatically). But, I would like to say that the question "what is *really* a glass of bear" leads you quickly to abstractions, from number to Hilbert Spaces and well beyond ! Even without mentionning the possible relative taste of the bear :o) That's why I doubt less about numbers than about mars, quark and other boojum. I aknowledge the persistence of those boojum and to the ingenious invariant patterns observers and thinkers extracts out of it, but I expect an explanation of those things in term of arithmetical relation. Well the point is that I do not prove the Non Physical. Nobody has proved the Physical either. But I do show that with comp we don't need to postulate a substancial physical for explaining talks on stable appearances in immaterial machine's public discourses. The advantage of comp is that it explains also stable complains in machine's private diaries. >In Nature has shown us that two different Systems of Rules can >lead to the same Features,and the Multiverse as a whole certainly has a >Multivalents about it. I guess so. Bruno